Was the Nuke really necessary?
Mark Conley
Active member
In My opinion...absolutely.
Could the japanese have been persuaded differently? I dont know. A lot of people have asked " why couldnt they have just showed them what would have happened by blowing an island to bits, and showing them the results"? I dont think that would have worked either. You see, it took two weapons, spaced 3 days a part, not just one, for them to understand, come to terms with it, and surrender. If they had been real easy to convince, one should have been enough.
No matter what has been said about the humanity of it all...I believe it would have been more humane than the alternative. That round the clock fire bombing of their citys, followed by a large amount of their population dying in hand to hand combat, with no one left to raise the crops...yes i think it was way more humane.
Its just my opinion..
Could the japanese have been persuaded differently? I dont know. A lot of people have asked " why couldnt they have just showed them what would have happened by blowing an island to bits, and showing them the results"? I dont think that would have worked either. You see, it took two weapons, spaced 3 days a part, not just one, for them to understand, come to terms with it, and surrender. If they had been real easy to convince, one should have been enough.
No matter what has been said about the humanity of it all...I believe it would have been more humane than the alternative. That round the clock fire bombing of their citys, followed by a large amount of their population dying in hand to hand combat, with no one left to raise the crops...yes i think it was way more humane.
Its just my opinion..
Uncle_Sam
Active member
I agree with Mark. Don't get me wrong, but I think the A-bomb saved much more lives to the Allies and to the Japan, than it has taken. And it's humaine than the non-stop bombings (like in Germany), it took much more lives of civilians, and the pressure and probably they were scared from bombs all the time, thinking it may kill them. This was in a blitz they didn't have much fear.
Do you know about that girl, that was 5meters from the epicentre and survived, but later died from a radiation poisoning.
Do you know about that girl, that was 5meters from the epicentre and survived, but later died from a radiation poisoning.
Doppleganger
Active member
Uncle_Sam said:
What's CLEAR to me is that you stated that the Soviets had lost 20 million casualties and implied that they were military casualties, only to later retract that and say that only 11 million were actually military casualties. Then you say that the (Red) Army that attacked Finland was really out of shape.
It was, but you seem to have completely ignored everyone's points without offering any kind of counter-arguments of your own.
As far as Nukes go, they held the peace in Europe for nearly 50 years, not bad for such devasting weapons. And don't you think nowdays that the biggest danger from nukes is not from any country or army but from terrorists?
:rambo: 
Tessa
Active member
So the impression I get is like this:
We can't live without nukes?
or
We wouldn't live without nukes?
I ain't not going deep on this, just speculations I have and I want to share.
So why would the human kind wipe out eachother if we didn't have the nukes?
Or have I misunderstood something? (as usual :lol: )
We can't live without nukes?
or
We wouldn't live without nukes?
I ain't not going deep on this, just speculations I have and I want to share.
So why would the human kind wipe out eachother if we didn't have the nukes?
Or have I misunderstood something? (as usual :lol: )
Tessa
Active member
In my opinion people comes up with excuses for almost everything these days.
The nukes can be disarmed as any other weapon and they can become as inactive as they should be by now.
If we would have learned by the Cold War that we don't need to keep our ***** envy towards other countries then we would not sit in this situation I think.
Should we even have our defence up at 100% all the time?
We don't always have to foreseen that someone will attack us, so why keep guarding something that is just taken in advantage?
Maybe everything of this keep to exist because we set it's way by fear?
Because if every country would set down their defences and become a very "vulnerable" country, then we would do no threath for other countries, and by showing them how much gut it takes to do that they will <maybe> learn to see that it wasn't so dangerous to stop measuring eachother.
All this is just a theory and a random thinking of mine, but I must say I feel pretty smart right now. Though, my mind has decieved me before. :lol:
The nukes can be disarmed as any other weapon and they can become as inactive as they should be by now.
If we would have learned by the Cold War that we don't need to keep our ***** envy towards other countries then we would not sit in this situation I think.
Should we even have our defence up at 100% all the time?
We don't always have to foreseen that someone will attack us, so why keep guarding something that is just taken in advantage?
Maybe everything of this keep to exist because we set it's way by fear?
Because if every country would set down their defences and become a very "vulnerable" country, then we would do no threath for other countries, and by showing them how much gut it takes to do that they will <maybe> learn to see that it wasn't so dangerous to stop measuring eachother.
All this is just a theory and a random thinking of mine, but I must say I feel pretty smart right now. Though, my mind has decieved me before. :lol:
Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
Hey your take on the matter is pretty much utopistic my gosh.
Given the fact that some dangerous countries ( the bad guys ) in the world have nuclear armaments, what makes you believe we ( the good guys ) should not ? Would you suggest anyone not to carry a knife if a criminal is around the house? And nope, the world order doesnt provide for an international police corps, ma'am.
Ah you guys upthere in sweet Sweden are just so naive! :roll:
Given the fact that some dangerous countries ( the bad guys ) in the world have nuclear armaments, what makes you believe we ( the good guys ) should not ? Would you suggest anyone not to carry a knife if a criminal is around the house? And nope, the world order doesnt provide for an international police corps, ma'am.
Ah you guys upthere in sweet Sweden are just so naive! :roll:
Tessa
Active member
Hehe, You we problaby are that naive.
But everything must start from somwhere, it's just the same effect as the rings on the water.
Someone has to start and Sweden I believe is getting that point.
And a good guy is just as bad when he does the same thing as the bad man does just to be "safe".
But everything must start from somwhere, it's just the same effect as the rings on the water.
Someone has to start and Sweden I believe is getting that point.
And a good guy is just as bad when he does the same thing as the bad man does just to be "safe".
Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
Yeah well I think Sweden can afford to think that way. Unfortunately the US can't. Anyways I like naive girls. Had enough of tough ones.
bush musketeer
Active member
SilverPhoenix said:
i agree with the last line completley!
but i dont think many countrys in the world these days trust each other enough to say "we will get rid of our nucs if you do" ( i doubt if much was learned from the cold war either)
I reckon the world can live without having nucs but wether some of the bigger countrys are willing to take the gamble :?:
and in reguards to my other post conceaning the nucs dropped in ww2, if that hadn't of been done wouldn't an invasion of japan meant a fight right to the end :?:
And i also have read a book written by one of the first jap doctors who was in hiroshima when it was bombed and started the medical aid for the ppl there. was very sad but so were some of the things they did
Sooners1
Active member
What keeps a Country from usin their nukes? Why is it that Russia never used their nukes on the US, and why did the US not use theirs on Russia durin those times? Think about this people I am not disagreein with everyone on this one but nukes keep the world safe. The reason they havent been used is because of the fact they would all be. Then there would be nothin left.
Well, the nukes are out there...You cant make every country disarm theirs, so you got to keep yours.The only time a nuke was used was when only 2 existed in the world....When both sides have them, they think before using. There is no way to keep some nut-case from using his, unless he knows the USA is going to retaliate with the same thing.
Tessa
Active member
It's not about asking, it's about doing. If one do it, the other will as well.
You can see the example in many situations.
As long as they exist, people will keep using them. Disarm the nukes is the only way more or less, or send it into space with a great speed.
What kept them for not nuking eachother? I believe the respect did.
a sketch of how it psychological would look like:
Russia: They are going to attack us!
US: Look Russia is up to something!
Russia: Ok, US looks like a danger now!
US: Oh, Look! Russia is getting into a defence mode!
Russia: We have nukes!
US: We also have nukes!
Russia: We <can> use them, so beware.
US: We are ready to go and fit for fight.
Russia: Look, I am almost pushing the button.
US: I have the guys on air, so don't make me give orders.
Russia: Wait, Are you attacking us?
US: Depends if you are about to attack us.
Russia: I thought you was about to attack us.
US: No, We was prepared if you were about to attack us.
(and this was not towards either US or Russia, just a little thing to show why they didn't attack eachother)
So you lay the resposnibilty in others countries? Why do other countries always have to start? I am not pointing out that US should start. But someone should start and stop using excuses. I am still not attacking US in any way, this is meaning to every country keeping their nukes.
I think that covered mostly all my thoughts on this matters. But I still want to point out that I ain't blaming any of the countires. Just pointing out a belief taken from my thoughts and opinions.